Perin V. Hayne Case Summary

analytical Essay
1160 words
1160 words

Arden Clark HAP 312 September 20, 2015 Discussion Paper: Negligence In a 1973 case, Perin v. Hayne, the District Court System of Iowa addressed the question of whether a cervical fusion performed on a female patient resulted in a paralysis of a vocal chord. (Showalter 160.). In this particular case the plaintiff, Perin, began consulting Dr. Robert A. Hayne for a cervical fusion surgery. Perin underwent the cervical fusion surgery to eliminate the pain, weakness, and numbness in her back, neck, right arm, and hand, which was caused by two protruding cervical disks. Subsequently, Perin alleged she suffered paralysis of a vocal chord because of an injury to the right recurrent laryngeal nerve during the surgery. In a consultation in 1968, Dr. Hayne took on the cervical fusion surgery for the plaintiffs pain, weakness, and numbness in her back, neck, right arm, and hand. The results from this surgery had resolved the plaintiffs injuries. Soon after, the plaintiff admits that even though the surgery resolved her previous …show more content…

In this essay, the author

  • Analyzes the case of perin v. hayne, in which a female patient underwent cervical fusion surgery to eliminate her pain, weakness, and numbness.
  • Argues that the plaintiff should have taken the means to establish specific negligence into consideration before bringing forth an expert witness to testify.
  • Explains that res ipsa loquitur should be taken into consideration when determining an opinion towards the courts holding.
  • Analyzes how illene perin's consent to fusion of two vertebrae combined with defendant’s assurances and failure to warn her of specific hazards vitiated her consent.
  • Explains that cervical fusion has a large scope that patients should be well aware of before just undergoing the corrective surgery. perin v. hayne was an important case in determining what is defined as specific negligence, res ipsa loquitur, and battery or trespass.
  • Cites burt, m., and skarin, g. res ipsa loquitur in child protective proceedings july 2011.

“In tort law, the doctrine which holds a defendant guilty of negligence without an actual showing that he or she was negligent. Its use is limited in theory to cases in which the cause of the plaintiff's injury was entirely under the control of the defendant, and the injury presumably could have been caused only by negligence”(Burt, M.A., & Skarin, G.D. (2011). In consideration of this, the defendant argues that the second foundation of this principle should be solely based on common knowledge of the situation. Although, there is a experts testimony tartar is no basis in this case , in the experts testimony or anything else, for indicating that the plaintiffs injury resulted from the negligence of the defendant. The court correctly found the defendant not liable under the Res ipsa

Let Our AI Magic Supercharge Your Grades!

    Get Access